Is Moshiri investing in the team?

[TheFinnFan]

Bantz Thread


GO BACK TO RAWK

 

[Abraders]

The difference is you heard about bids for Coutinho, Sanchez et al didn't you? You didn't hear of a single offer for anyone from Everton - not even Giroud, no bid went in. And it's not Everton being "quiet" about it - you heard about bids for Sigurdsson etc.

You have to bid in the first place to miss out on a player. We didn't - because it's quite clear we had no interest in signing a player beyond scrambling around for a loan if something came up.

Gentleman's agreement.

Everton were real gentlemen about the situation.

 

[Elong]

Bantz Thread


GO BACK TO RAWK

Great insight as always Finners. A real credit to this forum.

 

[ham2]

Voted yes, but read this on twitter and made me chuckle
"Beginning to think moshiri is like the mandarin out of iron man 3, a dodgy actor put in place to conceal the real power"!

 

[Moomin]

View attachment 40287

45+ million net spend, plus the wages. I'd suggest something has changed and investment is being made.

If only Barkley agreed to goto Chelsea and we got the Niasse deal over the line, we would have been below Newcastle.

 

[ianefc]

If only Barkley agreed to goto Chelsea and we got the Niasse deal over the line, we would have been below Newcastle.

But they didn't. And if we were desperate to (heaven forbid) break even, we'd of entered negotiations with Spurs as well as Chelsea.

Further more if Barkley signed the new contract he was offered, I would then assume we wouldn't be looking to sell him.

 

[Moomin]

But they didn't. And if we were desperate to (heaven forbid) break even, we'd of entered negotiations with Spurs as well as Chelsea.

Further more if Barkley signed the new contract he was offered, I would then assume we wouldn't be looking to sell him.

We agreed to the sale of both players, just that the players and their agents scuppered the deals.

 

[ianefc]

We agreed to the sale of both players, just that the players and their agents scuppered the deals.

I'm not doubting that.

 

[Hangleton]

But they didn't. And if we were desperate to (heaven forbid) break even, we'd of entered negotiations with Spurs as well as Chelsea.

Further more if Barkley signed the new contract he was offered, I would then assume we wouldn't be looking to sell him.

I think we were hoping to use the Barkley sale to fund the Siggurdson move - and that's why it dragged on so long. In the end we used the "striker money" to buy Siggurdson and waited on the Barkley sale to get a forward.
If we wanted Barkley to stay we wouldn't have delayed so long to offer him a contract.

 

[ianefc]

I think we were hoping to use the Barkley sale to fund the Siggurdson move - and that's why it dragged on so long. In the end we used the "striker money" to buy Siggurdson and waited on the Barkley sale to get a forward.
If we wanted Barkley to stay we wouldn't have delayed so long to offer him a contract.

So you think Koeman knew we weren't getting a striker?

 

[Hangleton]

So you think Koeman knew we weren't getting a striker?

No. That's why reports of a loan attempt for Jimenez have been reported. I just don't think the club wanted to spend the money.

 

[TheFinnFan]

Great insight as always Finners. A real credit to this forum.

Thanks
Im only here to serve

 

[diggerdestroyer]

If he got the 35 million for barkley he wanted he would be making a profit after 3 windows. How can one call this investment.

 

[mooseatingnome]

Well, didn't he? He meant to recoup that money at the last minute - both deals fell through. He'll certainly make up for that in January by selling assets then. It's an overdraft he's used.

That's not "investment". The TV money saw a 60% uplift - we've seen next to none of that in squad investment, let alone actual investment from Moshiri.

So your answer to that is to laugh it off. Fair enough I guess!

As others have pointed out, there has been investment other than in the squad. Some people choose to ignore that. Fair enough I guess!

 

[Ihaters]

I think we were aiming for break even this transfer window, but Mosh's money means we can afford to buy first and risk the Barkley's falling through.
It means that if we were to spend 100m and no one bought Lukaku, we would have a negative spend at levels the club didn't want, but nothing that can't be handled easily enough.
Overall I think his arrival means we can gamble bigger each window, gamble better each window and still have the same objective as before he arrived.
The TV money does help with this of course, but conversely it's destroyed the transfer market in England to the point average players cost crazy money these days.

The aim of any business has to be profit, that will not of changed. The risk levels to get there are simultaneously massively increased and decreased because of him. I.e we can bid higher but with risk less if it fails. Under Moyes if he spent 10m on a player and he failed we have huge problems for the next season or two. Under Koeman if he bid 30m and the player failed, he can bring on a different 30m player.

Outside the team things are changing as well, but there is still little of substance that has actually happened yet as opposed to being planned, but things are happening though, and the club is changing for the better.

Watch this space.... but it's actually worth doing this time.